The Supreme Court Scare

From Chuck Baldwin: Note: My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a new book, published soon by Agrapha Publishing, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.

Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, which took place on August 8, 2009.

Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative and libertarian editorialists and authors who have explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) is “out of control” and how we must elect “conservative” Presidents to appoint “conservative” judges. Ironically, this infatuation with the federal government, and specifically with the judicial branch of the federal government, has actually (at least in part) created the growing enslavement of the people of these States United.

Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America–NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government.

What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution.

When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the “liberal” judges with “conservative” judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this.

Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.

Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can.

What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is “to secure the blessings of liberty”?

The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly understood by those who advocated its ratification, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: the writers of the Federalist Papers. These are the men who some today would argue advocated for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating the power of the states to resist and arrest federal usurpation of power.

Obviously, these advocates of centralism would not have you aware of what these founders said on the subject, nor would they like to admit that the US Constitution formed a league of states, which was acceded to by each independent and sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right and duty of the states to actively guard against the encroachments of the federal government they created for the security of the blessings of liberty.

It must first be admitted that the US Constitution never gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:

“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the US Constitution.

To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will “equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.

One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies to the US S CT as well.

Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles? The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some guidance on the subject.

In Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton explains in detail the states’ right to actively resist federal tyranny and usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton:

“The plausibility of this objection [that the states will at any time obstruct the execution of federal laws] will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.

“But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights . . . Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY.” (Emphasis added.)

Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states’ ability to actively intervene against the federal government “in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.”

Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that states will not so easily and readily interfere with federal action when such interference must be made actively and openly against the federal government. Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree with the State actively resisting the federal government, that State will consider the risks and costs to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and not its ARM to communicate its discontent.

However, as told by Hamilton, “IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY,” the states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such tyrannical actions.

Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in Federalist Paper 26:

“[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . [T]he people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.” (Emphasis added.)

Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal government has usurped its powers and the people of the states feel it necessary, the states should secede from the union, dividing “themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”

This is not I stating this: this is one of the most well-known Founding Fathers in American history. Hamilton further expounds upon this states’ right and duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist Paper 28. He says,

“Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!” (Emphasis added.)

Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the states can check the federal government and that where “rights are invaded” by the federal government, the people “can make use of the [states] as the instrument of redress.” Hamilton continues in this discussion, saying:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES, AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY.” (Emphasis added.)

Even as expressed by the centralists’ hero, Alexander Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly suggests that the states have the sovereign and active power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny.

Again, the question here is not, does the federal government have the power to act within its delegated powers, for we all would concede that the federal government has the power to do what we the people in the several states delegated to the federal government.

We acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist Paper 27, “the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land.” Rather, the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not “enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction”?

After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course, this necessarily implies that we the people understand the Constitution, the principles of our government and the true character and nature of our government.)

Are the people of the states to sit back and let the federal government trample over the rights, principles and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal tyranny?

Are the people of the states to live and be governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense!

The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored.

To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we should insist that she fear the states–and obey the Constitution!

The States have capitulated to the federal government since 1865 and for the last 60 years are hooked on federal money.

The obligation of the resurrection and maintenance of the Constitution as the Ruler of the federal government rest squarely on the shoulders of the People, and not the States. The States do not have the constitutional power to control the federal government; neither do the People have the constitutional power to control the federal government. The People do not have the constitutional power to control even local or States governments. However, the People (only the people, not the States) do have the constitutional power of the Ballot Box to control who legislates in both the States and the federal government.

Also, the People, again not the States, have the power of the Jury Boxes (two) to defeat any and all government, federal & State, legislation and even Amendments.

Do I need mention to this group Article I, Sections 1 & 2, of the Constitution and 4, 5, 6, & 7 of the Bill of Rights?

Until the People “know” and “practice” their constitutional powers Constitutional America is no more forevermore.

I can give you as many examples of elections expanding liberty as you can give for State’s expanding liberty – none.

But read my statement again, I was taking about the “power/force” to reestablish lost liberty and maintain liberty under the Constitution. The States don’t have that power/force, only the people have it; as I mentioned (Article I, Sections 1 & 2, of the Constitution and 4, 5, 6, & 7 of the Bill of Rights – Do you disagree with this?).

Speaking of voting…
Who knows who the people voted for. Its all done in secret and is all easily manipulated. Until the votes are open knowledge we will never know who the american people vote in office.
I say post the votes and give each voter a reciept. If when you go to view your vote and it dosent match or it has been chnaged investigate. Any caught vote tampering should be shot or hung plain and simple. Yes accidents can occur but we wouldnt see anymore voting scandals like in fla and ohio.

Men and women of great virtue and spirit must join the legislators of the several states and speak out loudly against the wrong, rally the legislator to at last do its job and defend the rights of the people from the unconstitutional usurpation of the Federal government.

Spirit and passion in the name of liberty is required here, but also proponents and wisdom. The federal government has abandoned its respect for the Stateâ€™s right to check them, and as of the Civil war and even the â€œnullificationâ€ crisis in 1833, it has taken it upon itself to attempt to crush any such attempt to hold them in check using the might of military force.

That fact alone means if we are to do this we must be prepared to creditably be able to appose such a force.
Perhaps one way to do that will be to utilizes the standing army issue Hamilton brought up and allow the U.S. Army to ether be transferred entirely to the states to collapse entirely, by refusing to fund it, just before we move. Thus robbing the Federal government of its ability to make war and leaving the States with the means of military advantage in defending themselves.

As hard as it is to imagine us doing this in todayâ€™s world. I fear it is a risk we must take in order to deal with a far more threatening problem then international-terrorism, and rogue states. On the + side I imagine anti-war leftist even if they are centrist might be persuaded to go along with us.

It is also not like we would be entirely helpless, we could insist upon a transfer of all such army and air force assets to the respective State National guards, retaining the means to defend ourselves in this transitional period.

Before it comes to any such consideration in the mean time we will also require focused election targeting and replacing theses state officials federalizing in their duty to defend our rights and keep the federal government in check. (We must establish the will direct means to do this or all bets are off)

It is reported that 50% of the population is registered to vote and 50% of the registered actually vote – that means 25% of the population decides who is elected to the House in Congress. Judging by voting history of my lifetime the 25% that elects Congressmen “every two years” are, weather constitutionally stupid or on purpose, of the enemy camp.

Does that not leave the remaining 75% of the population in the enemy camp too?

Allen,
Clearly you are arguing a losing battle with respect to voting. You lack serious understanding of the political arena, respectfully, your numbers dont mean shit,and quoting the bill of rights to this group makes you look naive… so allow me to educate you.

If I present to you the candidates to vote for, your vote becomes irrelevant. Candidates are picked by the special interest groups, not the people. If the people do not warm up to a potential candidate, the special interests groups ( on both sides ) simply fund another,there is no shortage of scumbags waiting to take special interest money, but make no mistake, it is not you who has the power. it is the money. enough money buys blocks of votes, and finances campaigns. You are simply presented with the choices that are made by higher powers. EXAMPLE: how many union coal miner workers are going to vote for a candidate that wants to eliminate coal fire furnaces?… (think Unions)

ever hear someone asked by the media if they are going to run for office, and they cant answer it?( blanket answer is “it’s to early to tell”).. thats because they don’t have enough “support” yet.. what support do you think they are talking about?.. ever have a POTENTIAL candidate ask you for support?.. no, they dont aproach you Mr. Johnny citizen with their ideas because they know you dont have power, influence or money to finance the campaign.. the money is in the special interest groups.. the national association of realtors… the foundation for public broadcasting.. , the American medical association, the insurance industry, the NRA, the NAACP,rainbow push, the heritage foundation, the john birch society,AFL-CIO, shriners, free masons,the national dick pullers assosiation .. you seeing it yet? you and your vote dont matter, because the candidates have already been picked for you.. and get this… some of these special interest groups finance BOTH candidates.

The only way to make voting fair is to eliminate special interest money. this makes candidates stand or fall on their own merits. candidates are forced to answer to the people not the groups that fund their campaigns with promises to vote in a particular manner. Why would the public bother voting when the candidates to run are already picked?.. you simply pick your poison.

Better educate yourself before trying to educate someone else. You are indoctrinated with enemy propaganda in the “political” arena and are without any education at all on the Constitution and “Citizens” Duty in Citizenship.

Your ignorance of voting to elect Congressmen is over whelming, like the statement presenting a candidate; where did you get the information that a voters are “required” to vote for the presented?

Where did you get the ignorant idea that “money” votes?

Monorprise,

Where did you get the idea that “speaking out” forces government Officials?

Government is “force” and force must be used to contain government “Officials” within the chains of the Constitution and their Oath of Office.

The only “force” the People have to use against government “Officials” is the ballot box and only the People can use the ballot box.

Unions.. try reading the post, I even put an example up so you can understand it… but here is another one just in case you are to excited to re read it..
Senator runs for office, promises to support coal fire energy, coal miners union contributes money to campaign, gets all allied unions to contribute as well,( AFL-CIO) coal miners along with other union members are encouraged to vote for senetor as protection/ expansion of their jobs this works in every industry…. you really need it spelled out for you?

Monorprise,

“Where did you get the idea that â€œspeaking outâ€ forces government” Officials?

speaking what???.. somehow, you wandered off…

“Government is â€œforceâ€ and force must be used to contain government â€œOfficialsâ€ within the chains of the Constitution and their Oath of Office.”

uh huh,.. nice speech.. meanwhile the special interest groups are busy picking their candidate, ( and paying them off through campaign contributions so they get elected and letting the candidate know what they expect in return, such as voting a certain way, or supporting certain legislation. Just so you can exercise your right to vote for him.
Just look at all that power you have!

“The only â€œforceâ€ the People have to use against government â€œOfficialsâ€ is the ballot box and only the People can use the ballot box.”

Uh huh, again, great heart felt speech.. but who picks the candidates that are on the ballot??.. explain to me again your choice?
oh thats right.. it’s the two suits picked for you to vote for!

going off half cocked without actually reading the post, it shows in your well thought out response.

meanwhile, explain to us all who your choice was and how did you find him/her?..
leme guess, your choice was an unknown write in.. no wait… they approached you with their agenda, and asked you to support their campaign..

Allen,
the 2nd amendment also guarantees the RIGHT to keep and bare arms.. uh…. except in Illinois where a Firearms Ownerâ€™s Identification Card is REQUIRED (an FOID).. That means it’s a Licensed PRIVILEGE and not a right..
Rattling off chapter and verse of the constitution is the easy part.. convincing people that it’s the way our system of government currently runs is quite another.. and you will never convince this group of people that the constitution is being followed.

Why did you quote the 2nd? Do you think the Constitution is a menu to pick and choose which you like and don’t like?

The Right to keep and bear arms is not a Right to shoot-up or correct government nor is the Militia for insurrection and or rebellion. Quite the contrary the Right to keep and bear arms is strictly for defense and not for aggression.

What does the Constitution say is the purpose of the Militia?

All USA elected Officials and all Judges take an Oath to support the Constitution; what do you suggest those Officials and Judges take an Oath to do? Or can they be “constitutionally” elected to do something else than honor the Constitution’s Oath, if so what?

Seems to me, like the vast majority of the Citizenry, you really think the Founders were a bunch of dummies. Nothing they “left their progeny” works anymore. Is it possible the Progeny is too dumb to understand they are obligated to make it work?

What difference does it make who “picks” candidates, are Voters obligated to vote for one of those “picked”, especially of the 435 Districts with one Congressmen each?

What is to prevent or stop the People of any one or all of those Districts to pick a candidate for the House in Congress to vote for? Seems to if the people “knew” what they were doing in electing Congressmen that’s what they would do, do the picking themselves.

Allen,
I picked the 2nd to show you how simply quoting an amendment doesnt necessarily mean it’s followed.. it is manipulated, twisted, defined and redefined.. it gets taken literally by some, and taken out of context by others.. and totally ignored by some..I doubt seriously that our founding fathers had debating the matter in mind when they wrote it. but somehow in your mind.. everyone is following it because the founding fathers wrote it..

Okay, so Judges and elected officials take an oath. are you suggesting they dont violate it just because they recite it?? my god, Just how nieve are you?? do those words magically make them honest??.. sort of like taking the witness stand right?.. “so help me god,” and all that.. just makes em all honest as peach pie dont it?.. you live in a make believe world.

The whole of government pays no attention to the Constitution or the Oath of Office simply because the People do not enforce the Oath of Office. Therefore the People pay no attention to the Constitution, Oath of Office or their Duty in Citizenship.

You talk about “what is going on” in government/politics not how to fix it. What do you think is Citizen’s Duty in Citizenship? Is that People’s Duty to fix and keep fixed government; if so then how, by what “constitutional” method (the method left to us by the Founders)?

Allan – if you’re making the claim that the only method (other than violent revolution) that the founders proposed to correct federal overreach is the ballot box, you’ve got some history to study up on.

We’ll be doing a podcast on what the founders recommended in the future – and it’s far more than just voting.

“What difference does it make who â€œpicksâ€ candidates, are Voters obligated to vote for one of those â€œpickedâ€, especially of the 435 Districts with one Congressmen each? ”

Nope, and just look at how well the write ins do at the polls.. tell me how many write in’s have won an election in your state?.. wow that many huh?

“What is to prevent or stop the People of any one or all of those Districts to pick a candidate for the House in Congress to vote for?”

ever see someone get elected without money?? pretty sure the going rate to get a seat in the Senate is close to a million.. maybe more in New York or Massachusetts
how do you plan on running against someone who is financed by large corporations?.. how many tv spots can you buy with your meager income, what sort of fund raisers can you throw and where besides your backyard? compared to someone getting money from special interest groups?.

Allen,
the way to fix the problem of corrupt voting is to stop the flow of special interest money. politicians must be forced to campaign and answer to the people.. not to the corporations that fund them.. But like Michale says… there is much more to the problem then just voting..

I am saying exactly the Founders left us the “Constitution” to rule government and the Constitution does NOT endorse, espouse, or condone the use of arms to keep government Officials bound by the Constitution.

The Founders left us no power/force/authority to control or dictate to government, except; the Founders did leave us the power/force of Employer over government “elected Officials” and that power/force extends “only” to the hiring (or firing by not reelecting) of “elected” Officials.

We have the Right, born in 1215 of the Magna Carta/Charta, as Jurors to defend ourselves and each other from government “legislation”, Amendments or any injustice or unjust application of any law in government “Courts”.

We had the Right, not necessarily the power/force, to defend ourselves from “aggression” at birth as generations before us and long before the Constitution or the Colonies ever existed. Adam, first man, was born or created with the “Right” to defend himself – all living things have the Right to defend themselves from “physical attack”.

There is NO “Constitutional Right” in the USA to an armed revolution against government. There is a constitutional Right to defend ourselves, family, property and Neighbor from physical attack/aggression/crime. There is a Militia Right to defend its “Community” from physical attack/aggression/crime foreign or domestic.

Allan

Larry,

OK, I agree special interest money is criminal – how do you propose “we the people” stop special interest money?

Yes, the Founders left us a number of “options” or methods to address unconstitutionality (government corruption/usurpation) but only one power/force concerning “elected Officials”; the power to hire and fire them and then only at election times, for the House Members that is every two years.

We can use our Right of Grievance to influence with petitions, phone calls, and letters or in person and some claim we can file charges in courts.

The Right of Grievance is grossly misunderstood as it has no power/force at all; all government officials are “constitutionally” required to do about or with Grievances is listen to them. The simply explanation is the People cannot grievance the Constitution away; the People cannot amend the Constitution. As you know it requires three fourths of the State’s Legislatures in agreement to amend the Constitution.

Jefferson, a brilliant genius man, is often quoted as saying something like armed revolt every so often is necessary or not necessarily a bad thing, but the Constitution doesn’t say that. An “enforced” constitution actually makes armed revolution completely unnecessary forevermore.

Allen,
passing laws prohibiting the financing of political candidates on the national corporate level. contributions should only come from the candidates constituants.. meaning the state they come from,or the district they represent. because the emphasis should be representing the people who live in the state, and not money…..the candidate must adhere to strict campaign rules regarding money. setting rules with limits on campaign financing to only allow money from the people who he represents forces the candidate to answer directly to the people who do the voting.. rich or poor.. it becomes a matter of issues and not money.

also I agree that an amrmed revolt is out of the question.. weapons today have the ability to wipe out millions, in seconds… I don’t think this is what the founding fathers had in mind.. this can never become an option

There lies at the center of our country a weakspot, one that can be used to usurp power and authority that the 10th amendment to the US constitution forbids. this weakness is the federal government and it’s practice of overpowering the rights of states. states are supposed to be autonomous, and the only connection they have to the federal aspect of this country is the senate and representatives. despots have stealthily infiltrated the networks of parties to steal control and then expand their powers over things they do not have juristiction over. it is a sure sign that the federal government has been usurped by despots when it seeks to control the internal matters of the states.